On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 07:46:37 -0800, Brad Fuller wrote: > >Sure - that's a fair comment and a design decision once some project > >like this gets started. I just brainstorming. However, even with an > >onboard DSP, which is most likely what Pro Tools does, we'd still need > >to map from LADSPA C code to DSP code. Is that easy? > > > I would think it's easier than mapping gates. > I have not ever looked at LADSPA code. I assume most people write in C. > Today's DSPs, even 10 years ago, have a full compliment of C programming > tools. Bingo. Not really, most audio DSP chips use fixedpoint maths, which you cant use in C very well, and LADSPA plugins are 99% floating point. > Of course, the goal would be to strike a proper balance with making it > easy and cheap to design and mfr with making it easy and inexpensive for > the end user. From what I've read, that is your profession! I have > always said that engineering is an exercise in compromise ;-) > > It would be a cool and fun project! > > Have you seen plugzilla or receptor? > http://www.plugzilla.com/overview > http://www.museresearch.com/receptor_overview.php > > Kinda what you're talking about? Those have x86's on board, which is probably one reason why there so expensive. Another would be the displays. At this point I'm thinking it would be cheaper to just get a mini/micro ATX board, add a flash disk, boot RT linux or similar on it, plug in a off-the-shelf soundcard and use its firewire port to talk to the host. That kinda backwards and circular though :) > I think they created a VST wrapper to run in Linux. I would bet the > creators of one or both of these products visit this site. I think they did, and at least one compary is on the l-a-d list. - Steve
